Daily-wage seasonal workers have no enforceable right to continuous engagement, rejoining, or regularisation.

The petitioners had been engaged as daily-wage Seasonal Workers (Meth) under the Sone Canal Sub-Division, Bikram, from 1982/1983 onwards.

Their names appeared in a departmental list of 39 daily-wage/seasonal workers prepared for consideration of adjustment or regularisation.

They were disengaged in February 2015 without a formal notice or disciplinary inquiry.

After representations and an earlier writ petition, this Court directed the competent authority to pass a reasoned order.

The Chief Engineer thereafter rejected the petitioners’ claims for re-joining, regularisation and arrears by Memo No. 1081 dated 12 June 2018.

The petitioners challenged that order under Article 226 of the Constitution and sought re-engagement from February 2015 and payment of alleged unpaid wages.

Whether daily-wage/seasonal workers have a legal right to continuous engagement, re-joining or regularisation in Government service.

Whether the order dated 12 June 2018 rejecting the petitioners’ claims suffered from illegality, procedural infirmity or arbitrariness.

Whether the petitioners were entitled to arrears of wages for work actually performed, despite the rejection of their claim for re-engagement and regularisation.

The Court primarily applied the Constitution Bench decision in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1, which holds that daily-wage, casual and contractual employment does not confer a right to regularisation or absorption, particularly where the engagement was not made through a constitutional and regular recruitment process against sanctioned posts.

It also relied on Union of India v. Pradeep Kumar Saxena, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 69, for the principle that a daily-rated worker does not hold a Government post and cannot claim regularisation in the absence of statutory rules or a valid scheme.

State of Bihar v. Ram Sevak Yadav, 2013 (1) PLJR 964, was applied to reiterate that regularisation cannot be ordered for backdoor appointments or engagements not made through open competitive selection against sanctioned vacant posts.

The Court further relied on Kapil Kumar v. State of Bihar, CWJC No. 18612 of 2019, to hold that past daily-wage employment cannot justify preferential or exclusive treatment in future public recruitment in violation of Articles 14 and 16.

Government Resolution No. 1043 dated 13 June 2006 and Water Resources Department Memo No. 1305 dated 3 July 2006 were also considered in determining that seasonal workers were not entitled to absorption.

The Court found that the petitioners’ engagement was purely daily-wage and seasonal, based on the temporary requirement of canal works, and was not against sanctioned vacant posts or pursuant to a regular competitive selection process.

Applying Umadevi and the other precedents, the Court held that long duration of service and inclusion in a departmental list for possible adjustment did not create an enforceable right to regularisation, absorption or continuous re-engagement.

Their status as seasonal workers therefore did not entitle them to demand re-joining after discontinuance of their engagement.

The impugned order had considered the applicable Government resolutions and rejected the claims on the correct legal basis; consequently, the Court found no illegality, procedural infirmity or arbitrariness warranting interference under Article 226.

However, the Court distinguished entitlement to future engagement from entitlement to payment for work actually performed.

Since the Department’s assertion that all dues had been paid was unsupported by documentary material beyond a statement in the counter-affidavit, the petitioners were permitted to pursue that limited grievance by filing a fresh representation.

The Court held that the petitioners, as daily-wage seasonal workers not appointed through regular constitutional recruitment, had no legal right to absorption or continuous re-engagement.

Nevertheless, they were granted liberty to file a fresh representation concerning any unpaid dues for work actually performed, since the Department had not placed sufficient material proving complete payment.

No order as to costs was made.